Peer support in anaesthesia: Development and implementation of a peer-support programme within the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine

In search of an international multidimensional action plan for second victim support: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Insights around second victims (SV) and patient safety has been growing over time. An overview of the available evidence is lacking. This review aims to describe (i) the impact a patient safety incident can have and (ii) how healthcare professionals can be supported in the aftermath of a patient safety incident.

METHODS

A literature search in Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL was performed between 1 and 2010 and 26 November 2020 with studies on SV as inclusion criteria. To be included in this review the studies must include healthcare professionals involved in the aftermath of a patient safety incident.

RESULTS

In total 104 studies were included. SVs can suffer from both psychosocial (negative and positive), professional and physical reactions. Support can be provided at five levels. The first level is prevention (on individual and organizational level) referring to measures taken before a patient safety incident happens. The other four levels focus on providing support in the aftermath of a patient safety incident, such as self-care of individuals and/or team, support by peers and triage, structured support by an expert in the field (professional support) and structured clinical support.

CONCLUSION

The impact of a patient safety incident on healthcare professionals is broad and diverse. Support programs should be organized at five levels, starting with preventive actions followed by self-care, support by peers, structured professional support and clinical support. This multilevel approach can now be translated in different countries, networks and organizations based on their own culture, support history, structure and legal context. Next to this, they should also include the stage of recovery in which the healthcare professional is located in.

Mental health and well-being of anaesthetists during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed substantial burdens on clinicians and there is a need to better understand the impact on mental health and well-being. This scoping review investigates the prevalence of mental health concerns in anaesthetists, risk and protective factors for mental well-being, and anaesthetists' pandemic-related concerns and support. We searched online databases for articles published between January 2020 and May 2022, using search terms related to: anaesthesia; burnout, well-being, mental health or stress; and COVID-19. We identified 20 articles comprising 19 different populations of anaesthetists (n = 8680) from 14 countries. Studies identified the prevalence of the following condition in anaesthetists: burnout (14-59%); stress (50-71%); anxiety (11-74%); depression (12-67%); post-traumatic stress (17-25%); psychological distress (52%); and insomnia (17-61%). Significant risk factors for poorer mental health included: direct COVID-19-related issues (fear of self and family exposure to infection; requirement for quarantine); practitioner health factors (insomnia; comorbidities); psychosocial factors (loneliness; isolation; perceived lack of support at home and work); demographic factors (female gender; non-white ethnicity; LGBTQIA+); and workplace factors (redeployment outside area of clinical practice; increased work effort; personal protective equipment shortages). Protective factors identified included: job satisfaction; perceived organisational justice; older age; and male sex. Anaesthetists' self-reported concerns related to: personal protective equipment; resource allocation; fear of infection; fear of financial loss; increased workload; and effective communication of protocols for patient treatment. Support from family, colleagues and hospital management was identified as an important coping mechanism. Findings from this review may support the design of interventions to enhance anaesthetists' psychological health during pandemic conditions and beyond. Future research should include consistent psychological outcome measures and rigorous experimental design beyond cross-sectional studies.

A Narrative Review of Peer-Led Positive Psychology Interventions: Current Evidence, Potential, and Future Directions

Positive psychology interventions are an effective means for cultivating flourishing, addressing low levels of wellbeing, and preventing languishing. Peer-led interventions can be a particularly advantageous delivery method of positive psychology interventions, as participants tend to respond more favourably to people that they can identify with personally. Such interventions have been applied in a variety of settings and populations, but the literature on peer-led positive psychology interventions has not yet been summarised. This paper provides a narrative overview of peer-led positive psychology interventions. We reviewed relevant peer-led interventions, assessed the available evidence on their effectiveness, and highlighted promising opportunities for peer-led positive psychology interventions. We found that the majority of the studies were observational in design but showed a high level of acceptability for participants across the reviewed domains. In particular, schools, workplaces, the aged care sector, and community settings are noted as promising target domains for these interventions. However, more studies—particularly high-quality research—will be needed to comprehensively test the effectiveness of peer-led positive psychology interventions. We discuss opportunities for future research in this field.

Building a critical incident peer response team: A full theatre team welfare intervention

The psychological impact (second victim effect) of in-theatre critical incidents is increasingly recognised. Different styles of psychological support programme have recently been published, including some utilising 'near in time' peer support. Most of these programmes either target their support to individuals, or focus on one vocational group rather than the multidisciplinary team. However, the in-theatre team consists of different craft groups who nonetheless function as a single team and are therefore 'peers'. This paper sets out the design and implementation of a critical incident peer response programme at Waikato Hospital, New Zealand, which provides peer-led group psychological first aid to full theatre teams. The programme is administered by trained representatives from multiple in-theatre craft groups including nurses, midwives, anaesthetic technicians, recovery room nurses, surgeons and anaesthetists. It emphasises team education and peer support, and has a wholly welfare focus. The programme has voluntary participation but mandatory activation triggers so that individuals do not need to seek support actively at a time when they may not recognise the need to do so. The programme is becoming embedded in the Waikato Hospital theatre culture so that participating in psychological support is normalised following a critical event. This framework is shared in the hope that it will assist other hospitals to develop welfare interventions to support full theatre teams.

Impact of Providing Peer Support on Medical Students’ Empathy, Self-Efficacy, and Mental Health Stigma

Background: Peer-support programs in medical school can buffer feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, social isolation, and burnout, drawing upon the benefits of near-peer-support resources. This study examined the effects of providing support to students in a medical school peer-support program. Methods: Using a pre-post, quasi-experimental study design, the investigators surveyed medical students who were peer supporters in their second through fourth years of medical school with four measures assessing (1) empathy, (2) self-efficacy, (3) mental health stigma, and (4) likelihood to assist peers with mental health problems to examine if serving as a volunteer peer supporter had any effect. Participants included 38 medical students that were actively enrolled peer supporters during the 2020–2021 year at a United States allopathic medical school. Results: Medical students who participated as peer supporters were found to have higher ratings of empathy scores (Z = −1.964, p = 0.050, r = 0.34) and self-efficacy scores (Z = −2.060, p = 0.039, r = 0.35) after participation in the program. No significant changes were noted for mental health stigma or likelihood to assist peers with mental health problems. Discussion: Peer-support programs present a low-cost, sustainable modality to promote wellbeing in medical students. There is a growing body of literature documenting the benefits of peer-support services. This brief, novel study examined the effects of providing peer support on the peer supporters and found higher self-reported ratings of empathy and self-efficacy after participation. These findings underscore peer-support programs as a valuable wellness resource not only for medical students who use the services but for those who provide them as well.

Second victim support structures in anaesthesia: a cross-sectional survey in Belgian anaesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesiologists are prone to patient safety situations after which second victim symptoms can occur. In international literature, a majority of these second victims indicated that they were emotionally affected in the aftermath of a patient safety incident (PSI) and received little institutional support after these events.

OBJECTIVE

To study the current second victim support structures in anaesthesia departments in Belgium.

METHODS

An observational cross-sectional survey. Belgian anaesthesiologists and anaesthesiologists in training were contacted through e-mail from May 27th until 15 July 2020.

RESULTS

In total, 456 participants completed the online survey. 73.7% (n = 336) of the participants encountered a PSI during the last year of their medical practice. 80.9% (n = 368) of respondents answered that they do discuss incidents with their colleagues. 18.0% (n = 82) discussed all incidents. 19.3% (n = 88) admitted that these incidents are never discussed in their department. 15.4% of participants (n = 70) experienced or thought that the culture is negative during these PSI discussions. 17.3% (n = 79) scored the culture neutral. Anaesthesiologists who encountered a PSI in the last years scored the support of their anaesthesia department a mean score of 1.59 (ranging from -10 to +10). A significant correlation (P < 0.05) was found between the culture during the morbidity and mortality meetings, the support after the incidents and the perceived quality of the anaesthesia department.

CONCLUSION

Of the participating anaesthesiologist in Belgium, 80.9% discussed some PSIs and 18.0% discussed all PSIs as a normal part of their staff functioning with an experienced positive or neutral culture during these meetings in 84.6%. Psychological safety within the anaesthesiology departments is globally good; however, it could and should be optimized. This optimization process warrants further investigations in the future.